| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 1378 2001 SLD 1378 2001 SCMR 688 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal Nos. 1627 to 1652 of 1999, decision dated: 1st February, 2001, hearing DATE : 4-01-200
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI AND DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JJ
Fakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant (in C. As. Nos. 1627 and 1628 of 1999). Syed Najmul Hasan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M.Z. Khalil, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 1627 to 1652 of 1999, decision dated: 1st February, 2001, hearing DATE : 4-01-200
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI AND DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JJ
Fakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant (in C. As. Nos. 1627 and 1628 of 1999). Syed Najmul Hasan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M.Z. Khalil, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
Messrs ALKARAM TRAVELS (PVT.) LTD. and others
VS
EAST WEST INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Law:
Section:
(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)---- ----S. 15---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Failure to specify about space required by the landlord for its needs---Eviction of large number of tenants---Effect---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider that the landlord had failed to establish its bona fides and that it required the entire building in good faith for its occupation, inasmuch as the landlord's managing director, who appeared as a witness; was neither aware of the built-up area of the building nor could specify the additional space required by the landlord for its offices, such information was vital for determining the actual need of the landlord and its bona fides; that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings the landlord purchased another building in the same city but failed to explain as to why the additional accommodation would not be enough to meet its requirements that the eviction of such large number of tenants at the same time was not justified in law. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)---- ----S. 15---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below---Neither there was any inconsistency between the pleadings and evidence of the landlord, nor the testimony of its witnesses had been shaken in the cross-examination---Tenants failed to produce evidence in rebuttal to disprove the case of the landlord who had proved its bona fides for personal use---Rent Controller as well as the High Court found that the property in question was required by the landlord for its. personal bona fide need---Validity---Where there was no irregularity or illegality in the judgments of the two Courts below and the landlord had proved its bona fide for personal use of the demised premises before Rent Controller which was affirmed by the High Court appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court. Messrs Tiger Wire Product Ltd. v. S. Abrar Hussain 1983 SCMR 402; Abdul Razzaq and others v. Muhammad Aslam and others 1995 SCMR 201; Rajab Ali v. Darius B. Kandawalla and another PLD 1984 Kar. 14; Sabu Mal v. Kika Ram alias Heman Das 1973 SCMR 185;…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492